DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/issn.2454-5929.ijohns20202212

Relevance of indirect laryngoscopy as an examination tool in present day otorhinolaryngological practice

H. Ravi Kishore, Pallavi Hosakoti

Abstract


Background: The objective of the study was to determine the difference in extent of laryngeal visualization between indirect laryngoscopy (IDL) mirror and rigid endoscopy (70°) and relevance of IDL in present day otolaryngological practice.

Methods: 100 patients attending to the Department of ENT, Vijayanagara Institute of Medical Sciences, Ballari, Karnataka with complaints referable to larynx and upper digestive tract were taken up for study. All patients underwent IDL mirror and rigid endoscopic (4 mm, 70°) examination. The extent of laryngeal visualization by the clinician was recorded for each examination.  

Results: Out of 100 patients who underwent IDL mirror examination and rigid endoscopic (4 mm, 70°) examination in 87% of cases IDL mirror examination was adequate for making the diagnosis and in 11% of cases we needed rigid endoscopic examination for making the diagnosis. In 2% of cases we were not able to visualize the pathologies even with rigid endoscopy, in whom we needed other modalities of examination like radiological evidence to arrive at a diagnosis.

Conclusions: In the present study, in 87% of the cases IDL mirror examination was adequate for making the diagnosis. Eleven cases needed rigid endoscopic (4 mm, 70°) examination to aid in diagnosis of pathologies. Even though laryngeal mirror examination is less comfortable, causing gagging for patient and may provide less complete information when compared to rigid endoscopy because of its less expensive, better depth visualization of structures and near real size images provides a versatile tool till date. Be that as it may indirect laryngoscopic mirror examination remains the mainstay of otolaryngological practice in today’s Otolaryngology practice.


Keywords


IDL mirror, Rigid endoscopy, Larynx

Full Text:

PDF

References


Jackson C. Bronchoscopy and esophagoscopy. A manual of peroral endoscopy and laryngeal surgery. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1922.

Karmody CS. Part I: Historical perspectives, the history of laryngology. In: Fried MP, ed. The larynx: a multidisciplinary approach. 2nd ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 1996: 3-11.

Goldman JL, Roffman JD. Indirect laryngoscopy. Laryngoscope. 1975;85(3):530-3

Bray F, Ferlay J, Parkin DM, Pisani P. International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2000: Cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide. Int Agency Res Cancer, Lyon, 2001.

Parkin DM, Pisani P, Ferlay J. Estimates of the worldwide incidence of 25 major cancers in 1990. Int J Cancer. 1999;80:827-41.

Herrington-Hall BL, Lee L, Stemple JC, Niemi KR, MC Hone MM. Description of laryngeal pathologies by age, sex, and occupation in a treatment-seeking sample. J Speech Hear Disord. 1988;53:57-64.

Baitha S, Raizada RM, Kennedy Singh AK, Puttewar MP, Chaturvedi VN. Clinical profile of hoarsens of voice. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2002;54(1):14-8.

Mehta AS. An etiological study of hoarseness of voice. A thesis submitted for master of surgery (Otorhinolaryngology), Gujarat University, 1985.

Parikh N. Aetiology study of 100 cases of hoarseness of voice. Indian J Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1991;43(2):71-3.

Deshmukh. Clinical study of hoarseness of voice. A thesis submitted for master of surgery (Otorhinolaryngology), Gujarat University, 1976.

Eryilmaz A, Akmansu H, Topcu E, Acar A, Korkmaz H. The role of 70 degree telescopic examination during direct laryngoscopic evaluation of laryngeal cancers. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol. 2004;261(5):267-9.

Brewer DW. Perceptual errors in indirect laryngoscopy. Laryngoscope. 1966;76(8):1373-9.

Calhoun KH, Stiernberg CM, Quinn FB, Clark WD. Teaching indirect mirror laryngoscopy. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1989;100(1):80-2

Colton RH, Casper JK, Minoru H, editors. Understanding voice problems. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins; 1990.

Garcia de Hombre AM, Paz Cordoves A. Diagnostic correlation between indirect laryngoscopy, fibro-laryngoscopy and microlaryngoscopy with the anatomopathological results. An Otorrinolaringol Ibero Am. 2003;30(2):151-60.

Lacoste L, Karayan J, Lehuede MS, Thomas D, Goudou-Sinha M, Ingrand P, et al. A comparison of direct, indirect, and fiberoptic laryngoscopy to evaluate vocal cord paralysis after thyroid surgery. Thyroid. 1996;6(1):17-21.

Muller A, Verges L, Gottschall R. Prognostic value of a screening test for difficult microlaryngoscopy. HNO. 2002;50(8):727-32.

Dinardo LJ, Kaylie DM, Isaacson J. Current treatment practices for early laryngeal carcinoma. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1986;112:519-7.